LAWS(P&H)-2001-12-57

ASHOK KUMAR CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On December 04, 2001
ASHOK KUMAR CHAUHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint under the Provisions of thee Insecticides Act, 1968 read with the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.

(2.) IN the present petition, it was alleged that the petitioner was an employee of M/s Delta Insecticides Ltd., New Delhi and that he has been involved as accused in the criminal complaint filed by the Sate of Punjab through the Insecticide Inspector, Patiala. It was alleged that M/s Delta Insecticides Ltd. manufactures various kinds of pesticides and insecticides. It was alleged that on 10.12.1992, the Insecticide Inspector had drawn a sample from the shop of the dealer i.e. M/s Jindal Sales Corporation, Samana, which insecticide was manufactured by M/s Delta Insecticides Ltd. It was alleged that on analysis by the State Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda, the sample was found to be misbranded. It was further alleged that even after the re-analysis of the second part of the sample by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, it was still found to be misbranded. It was alleged that the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala, had issued a show cause notice to the aforesaid company i.e. M/s. Delta Insecticides Ltd. and the company had submitted its reply. It was alleged that no notice of any kind was given to the petitioner in his individual capacity. It was further alleged that lateron the complainant filed the complaint dated 23.11.1994, copy Annexure P-1, before the Judicial Magistrate. It was alleged that the said criminal complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, were liable to be quashed, inter alia on th ground that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused even though the manufacturing company, of which the petitioner is an employee, has not been arrayed as a co-accused. It was alleged that the company was liable to be prosecuted. It was further alleged that the office-bearers of the company could be prosecuted only if it was found that the offence was committed by the company. It was further alleged that in the entire complaint, there was no allegation that the petitioner was responsible person for the conduct of the business of the company or that the offence has been committed with the consent of the petitioner. It was alleged that the complaint under Sections 3K(1), 13, 17, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act etc. was liable to be quashed, qua the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.